CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Diversity and Career in MedicineSex and Gender in Healthcarescientometrics and bibliometrics research

Metaresearch study highlights the gender gap in randomized controlled trials in dentistry

Prado, Mayara Colpo, Dotto, Lara, Agostini, Bernardo Antonio, Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael·2023·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and objectives This study aimed to assess the gender gap in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry in terms of authorship, collaborations, metrics, funding and reporting of good research practice and transparecy.Methods The search was performed in PubMed for RCTs restricted to English texts in the dental field, indexed from 12/31/2016 to 12/31/2021. Two reviewers screened the studies in line with the eligibility criteria. A total of 844 articles were included. The name and gender of authors, citation metrics, funding, reporting of characteristics of good research practice and transparency were extracted. We considered "collaboration between authors" when the corresponding author was different from the first author.Results The proportion of women as first authors was 46.56% and 40.12% for corresponding authors. The analysis showed that when a woman is the corresponding author, the probability of the first author also being a woman is 57% higher compared to the first author being a man. For "protocol registration" and "data sharing," the prevalence of reporting was higher when women were first authors.Conclusion A gender gap in dentistry RCTs was identified and related to the participation of women as first and corresponding authors and the collaboration between authors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.005

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our initial published analysis identified a gender gap in RCTs in dentistry, which is present in study authorship and collaboration between authors.

    “Our initial published analysis identified a gender gap in RCTs in dentistry, which is present in study authorship and collaboration between authors 19 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Prado, M. C., Dotto, L., Agostini, B. A., & Sarkis-Onofre, R.
Affiliations
  • Atitus Educação (BR)
  • Universidade Regional Integrada do Alto Uruguai e das Missões (BR)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-10
Volume
162
Pages
47-55
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.005
OpenAlex
W4385781772
Cited by
10
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
gender gap, women in research, authorship, corresponding authors, first authors, co-authorship, citation metrics, research funding, research transparency, protocol registration, data sharing, good scientific practice, dental research, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Authorship, Dentistry, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review